B-144988, MAR. 14, 1961

B-144988: Mar 14, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

THE RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED AND LONG FOLLOWED BY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICERS THAT IN THE EVENT OF A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FACTS AS STATED BY A CLAIMANT AND THOSE AS REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CONCERNED. ANY PAPER EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF GOODS NORMALLY WILL INCLUDE A LEGEND INDICATING THAT IT IS A RECEIPT AND THE SIGNATURE OF THE RECEIVING PARTY WILL BE SO PLACED THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO ITS PURPOSE. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE ABOVE FORM TO SHOW ITS PURPOSE OR THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAME "SMITH.'. ASSUMING THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE RECEIPT. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE WAS NO ONE ASSIGNED TO THE COMMISSARY BY THE NAME OF SMITH WHO COULD HAVE SIGNED FOR THE SHIPMENT AND IN ORDER TO HAVE A VALID CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE SUPPLIES WERE RECEIVED BY SOMEONE OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SAME.

B-144988, MAR. 14, 1961

TO BRILLO MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF GREAT BRITAIN LIMITED:

YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 6, 1961, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR 22.16.3 POUNDS STERLING, REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF 15 CARTONS OF SOAP PADS ALLEGEDLY DELIVERED ON JULY 25, 1957, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 406TH SUPPORT GROUP, RAF STATION, MANSTON, KENT, PURSUANT TO ORDER NO. (61 709) 58-152, DATED JULY 18, 1957.

THE RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED AND LONG FOLLOWED BY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICERS THAT IN THE EVENT OF A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FACTS AS STATED BY A CLAIMANT AND THOSE AS REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CONCERNED, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MUST BE ACCEPTED AS CONTROLLING IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF.

IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM THERE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED A COPY OF A BRITISH RAILWAYS FORM SHOWING RECEIPT OF THE SUPPLIES BY ONE "SMITH.' ANY PAPER EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF GOODS NORMALLY WILL INCLUDE A LEGEND INDICATING THAT IT IS A RECEIPT AND THE SIGNATURE OF THE RECEIVING PARTY WILL BE SO PLACED THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO ITS PURPOSE. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE ABOVE FORM TO SHOW ITS PURPOSE OR THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAME "SMITH.' HOWEVER, ASSUMING THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE RECEIPT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE WAS NO ONE ASSIGNED TO THE COMMISSARY BY THE NAME OF SMITH WHO COULD HAVE SIGNED FOR THE SHIPMENT AND IN ORDER TO HAVE A VALID CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE SUPPLIES WERE RECEIVED BY SOMEONE OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SAME. FURTHERMORE, A CAREFUL CHECK OF THE INVENTORY RECORDS AND OF THE ACTUAL STOCK OF THE COMMISSARY FAILED TO REVEAL RECEIPT OF THE GOODS.

IN YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 6, 1961, YOU STATE THAT THE BRITISH RAILWAYS ADVISE YOU THAT IN VIEW OF THE DISPUTE OVER THE SIGNATURE, IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSARY OFFICER ON JANUARY 20, 1959, THAT HE ADMITTED RECEIPT OF THE FULL CONSIGNMENT AND THAT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SAME COULD BE FURNISHED. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FILE TO CORROBORATE THE STATEMENT THAT THE COMMISSARY OFFICER ADMITTED RECEIPT OF THE GOODS IN QUESTION, AND IF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD WHY BRITISH RAILWAYS WOULD WITHHOLD IT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT DELIVERY OF THE SUPPLIES TO THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE PRESENT RECORD THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 23, 1960, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, IS SUSTAINED.